JUDGMENT G R Moolchandani, J. - This writ petition has been preferred against the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation under Articles 226 and 14 of the Constitution, with following prayers :- i. To waive the entire penal interest imposed upon the petitioner on the loan amount of Rs.950.00 lacs sanctioned vide sanction of loans order dated 27.02.2008. ii. To refund the amount of penal interest to the petitioner which has already been deposited by petitioner to R.F.C. iii. To refund the amount of compound interest to the petitioner which has already been deposited by the petitioner to R.F.C. iv. To make the petitioner the payment of rebate of one percent (1%) for timely payment as delay was caused by R.F.C. v. To refund the amount of interest of period 16 months in which the delay was caused by R.F.C., to the petitioner, which has already been deposited by the petitioner to R.F.C. 2. The basic factual matrix of the petition is that petitioner, M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Ltd. entered into an agreement of borrowing Rs. 9.5 crore on 20.03.2008 and a MOU/Covenant was reduced into writing, main features of the covenant stipulates that borrower shall and was to repay the loan in thirteen equal quarterly instalments of Rs. 98.60 lakh each, commencing from from 01.09.2008 in three and half years, including a moratorium period not exceeding six months. The rate of interest was 16% with rebate of 1% for timely repayments and this admitted factual aspect has remained uncontroverted. 3. Urging oral submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid attention and based the argument on the document pertaining to minutes of the board meeting dated 2nd of April 2012 quoting minutes of 514th meeting of the board of directors of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation held on 01.12.2011 that as per the minutes, the Corporation had already recovered a sum of Rs 15.82 crores. 4. Learned counsel has contended that as per the prevailing norms adopted in the meeting, petitioner was to be exonerated from charging of penal interest, which has not been exempted and dates are relevant for the encumbrance and recovery of the said amount. 4. Learned counsel has contended that as per the prevailing norms adopted in the meeting, petitioner was to be exonerated from charging of penal interest, which has not been exempted and dates are relevant for the encumbrance and recovery of the said amount. On 09.08.2011 it was directed by the Government that penal interest was not to be levied, since there was an economic recession, so the petitioner despite sincere endeavours, failed to repay the installments as per the covenant and had sent several letters to the respondent Corporation for leniency and extension of time and had constrained to propose five options before the Corporation in lieu as under :- a) RFC give an NOC without heavily binding conditions to sub-divide, build, construct and sell the mortgaged property with immediate effect OR b) RFC settle the account, stop accruing interest, and allow the company to make payments in 36 months instalments OR c) RFC settle the account, stop accruing interest, and give the company three months to find a purchaser to the said land who would repay the dues in one go or get the loan liability transferred OR d) RFC acquire the land, stop accruing interest and auction the land through JDA as the MRV of the lands was Rs. 20.87 crores OR e) RFC change the nature of the loan from mortgage loan to project loan and allow the company to construct and sell the constructed area. and the respondent Corporation yielded to the proposition suggested as in para no. 1. Admittedly, entire amount of the Corporation has already been paid but contrary to the assertions, exemption of penal interest of 1% has not been given, which ought to have been extended in view of the minutes of the board's meeting, a transparent understanding was made that petitioner would not be levied with penal interest, because default had occasioned owing to the reasons beyond the control of the petitioner as a result of worldwide recession, which too was recognized by the respondent, as such petition be allowed and at-least, grant of 1% penal interest be given and exempted, calculations to this effect be made and petitioner be refunded with coercively charged penal interest. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Rajasthan Financial Corporation has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and has urged that admittedly apart from first installment, no other installment has been paid to the RFC and a manifest default has been made by the petitioner, which is admitted, RFC is not having any fiscal corpus, rather funds are borrowed from SIDBI and other financial institutions, so RFC is obliged to honour financial covenants, hence Corporation cannot travel beyond established norms and cannot act contrary to the agreed covenants and is not in a position to exempt, penal interest, rather all the liabilities have been cleared by the petitioner Resorts, so there remains no question to be adjudicated and instant petition has since become infructuous. Quoting several references of the minutes of meeting and main/principal covenant, it has been reiterated that an admitted transgression to the conditions of the covenant is there, so there is no reason to interfere with the interest, penal interest has been levied as per the covenant and nothing remains to be exempted, so instant petition is misconceived and it be dismissed, accordingly. 6. Authority of bilateral covenant arrived at between both the parties, prescribes that the loan amount was payable as under:- 4. Repayment period: i) The proposed terms loan shall be repayable in 31/2 years including moratorium period not exceeding 6 months. ii) The company shall repay loan in 13 equated quarterly installments of Rs.98.60 lac against principal and interest through post dated cheques. The first installment (including principal and interest) shall fall due on first day of the quarter i.e. Dec., March, June and Sept. falling immediately after 3 months from the date of first disbursement. In case of any balance amount is payable/recoverable, as the case may be, shall be recovered/ adjusted in last EQI. The above cheques of EQI are calculated net of rebate i.e. interest @ 15% p.a. (i.e. prevailing rate of interest @ interest@16% p.a. minus rebate for timely payment i.e. @ 1%.) in case of non receipt of payment of interest (Moratorium period) and EQI within the time eligible for rebate, the concern shall pay interest @ 1% p.a. in lieu of timely payment rebate considered in PDCs against EQI, as above, over and above liquidated damages. The branch shall debit the same in the loan account of the company while calculating manually. The branch shall debit the same in the loan account of the company while calculating manually. The branch shall recover quarterly interest for the moratorium period by calculating the interest manually and same shall be recovered during the moratorium period itself. 5. Rate of interest: The rate of interest shall be the prevailing rate of interest of the Corporation on the date of first disbursement of loan including token money. Presently, the prevailing rate of interest is @ 16% per annum. The interest shall be compounded quarterly and also in case of delay in repayment, the liquidated damages as applicable from time to time, (presently @ 3% per annum) on the amount in default for the period of default shall be applicable. The interest shall fall due on 1st day of quarter i.e. March, June, September and December every year. The first interest shall be debited on the next interest debit date falling after the first disbursement date. Rebate for timely payment is 1%. and it clearly lays down that rebate of 1% of penal interest is applicable only in event of timely payment of the borrowed amount. 7. Petitioner has laid emphasis on the minutes of Board of Directors' meet dated 01.12.2011, which has got recital of background to the proposals advanced by the petitioner and the issues which were to be decided and pondered upon by the Board of Directors' meet and it deals with the said background. 8. It has also dwelt in the Board of Directors' meet subject "The Board noted that the borrower repaid the first instalment, fallen due on 01.09.2008 but could not repay the instalments fallen due w.e.f. 01.12.2008 onwards. The party requested the Corporation for deferment and reschedulement which was considered and allowed several times but due to recession in the Real Estate Sector the party could not honour its own commitments to repay and also failed to implement its Group Housing Project resulting into accumulation of dues amounting to Rs.12.02 crore as on 01.06.2011" and contents of this background lays down that an amount of 12.02 crore was outstanding against the petitioner company on 01.06.2011. 9. At page no. 9. At page no. 12 it has also been discussed "Against the loan disbursed of Rs.9.50 crores, the Corporation has recovered the entire principal amount of Rs.9.50 crores and Rs.6.32 crores as interest at the penal rate of 16% interest as against the documented rate of interest of 15% which the party could have been eligible, had it made timely payments", it is enough to indicate that the party i.e. petitioner company was not found eligible for the exemption of penal interest because the installments were not paid timely. In the concluding page it is also observed "The Board noted that the penal interest is generally waived whenever there is settlement/sacrifice made by the Corporation by DLC/HOLC/SLC and that waiver of penal interest, when the entire principal and interest has been recovered, is not an exception to the rule while considering / redressing grievances. The RFC has recovered Rs.6.32 crores as interest on a loan of Rs.9.50 crores in a period of 4 years. To avoid litigation and disputes, the Board agreed not to recover Rs.54.58 lakhs debited in the loan account as penal interest, as higher interest @ 16% instead of 15% has already been charged and chronology of the heads discussed is nothing than to the background relating to the subjects case profile and proposed points of the discussion, ultimate as the decision propounded, which is indicative of consent to waive Rs. 54.58 lakh. 10. The representative of the Company Shri Akhilesh Tiwari has given his consent in writing on the decision taken by the Board to waive penal interest of Rs. 54.58 lakh", which goes to suggest that considering the bonafides of the petitioner company, 1% of penal interest was not exempted but in lieu thereof, residue amount of Rs. 54.58 lakh was mutually decided to be waived and the petitioner company is consenting party to the proposition of waving this amount towards penal interest of Rs. 54.58 lakh, as such going contrary to it by agitating for refund of penal interest, is also not within the equity domain demanded by the petitioner company. 11. 54.58 lakh was mutually decided to be waived and the petitioner company is consenting party to the proposition of waving this amount towards penal interest of Rs. 54.58 lakh, as such going contrary to it by agitating for refund of penal interest, is also not within the equity domain demanded by the petitioner company. 11. It is obvious that petitioner company has failed to meet with the conditions of the covenant and has also failed to repay the loan in the agreed installments, as such incidence of nonrefund of 1% penal interest got attracted and the petitioner company was held to be ineligible for refund of 1% of the penal interest, moreover, petitioner company could also not be permitted to act contrary to the agreed position because petitioner company has been a consentee before the Board of Directors' meet to avail waiver of the penal interest of Rs. 54.58 lakh only, as such petitioner company is not entitled to get any other equity, thus it is found that instant petition is misconceived and lacks merit. 12. Resultantly, there remains nothing to be adjudicated since petitioner has already been availed payable and equitable consented waiver to the tune of Rs. 54.58 lakh and being a consentee thereto, has got no cause to agitate the issue again. 13. Therefore, petition lacks substance and deserves to be dismissed and so is dismissed, accordingly.